Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 235 Filed 03/31/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
1467
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEW
v.
NATHAN REARDON
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO RESTORE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
The Government, by and through undersigned counsel, opposes Defendant
Nathan Reardon’s pro se Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief to
Restore Second Amendment Rights (the “Motion” or “Mot.,” Dkt. #232, Mar. 20, 2025),
filed in the above-captioned criminal matter. By his Motion, Defendant “moves this
Court to declare 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to him and to enjoin
its enforcement, thereby restoring his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”
Mot. at 1. A declaratory judgment and permanent injunction are sought. Id. at 2.
The Motion should be denied without prejudice to Defendant proceeding—if the
Court deems it appropriate—in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Motion is pending here in Defendant’s previous criminal case. However, “[t]here is
one form of action—the civil action,” and any such “civil action [must be] commenced by
filing a complaint with the court.” FED. R. CIV. P. 2 & FED. R. CIV. P. 3; see also Clarke v.
Brewer, 18-cv-11880, 2018 WL 3770033, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 9, 2018) ( “[b]efore a
complaint is filed, no action has ‘commenced,’ and the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to grant relief”). Defendant, who is no stranger to filing civil lawsuits with
1
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 235 Filed 03/31/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
1468
this Court, 1 is therefore unable to seek civil declaratory and injunctive relief in his
criminal case.
The Government is mindful, however, that “less stringent standards”
nevertheless apply to pro se litigants’ filings, which must be “liberally construed.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). The Motion arguably approximates the
pleading elements required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and bears some
resemblance to a pleading. Accordingly, the Government suggests docketing the Motion
as a complaint on a new civil docket and proceeding (if at all) following the issuance of
the necessary summons and scheduling order.
WHEREFORE, the Government respectfully requests that the Motion be denied,
but transferred to a new civil docket where the action may progress in accordance with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated: March 31, 2025 Respectfully submitted
Bangor, Maine
CRAIG M. WOLFF
Acting United States Attorney
/s/ Andrew K. Lizotte
Andrew K. Lizotte, AUSA
202 Harlow Street
Bangor, ME 04401
(207) 262-4636
Andrew.Lizotte@usdoj.gov
1 See Reardon v. Lowes Home Centers LLC, 1:25-cv-00099-LEW (D. Me.); Reardon v. United
States, 1:21-cv-00361-LEW (D. Me.); Reardon v. Lowes Companies Inc., 1:21-cv-00362-LEW (D. Me.);
Reardon v. Tegna East Coast Broadcasting LLC, 1:21-cv-00356-JDL (D. Me.).
2
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 235 Filed 03/31/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
1469
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 31, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing using
the CM/ECF system, which will send an electronic notification of such filing to all
counsel of record, and that I have further caused the same to be mailed to Defendant’s
last known address of record.
CRAIG M. WOLFF
Acting United States Attorney
/s/ Andrew K. Lizotte
Andrew K. Lizotte, AUSA
202 Harlow Street
Bangor, ME 04401
(207) 262-4636
Andrew.Lizotte@usdoj.gov
3